> But wouldn't this predict that results would be much better on Bing and other search engines that don't have much presence in the "put ads on random sites" ma

> But wouldn't this predict that results would be much better on Bing and other search engines that don't have much presence in the "put ads on random sites" market? Honestly what I think is every search engine sucks these days, and Google manages to suck a little bit less. The reason is because how easy it has been to publish low quality content. It's rare to find high quality contents. The issue with search engine is that they don't show these rare contents. These aren't recommended by default. These are hidden. What happened is the recommendation system is broken! If there weren't any neural networks making decision, it would have been different issue. But with modern search engines deploying recommendation system, I think it is all about rich gets richer scheme. You can't recommended new or fresh but quality content because it was never visited! So, when the entire backend is relying on user data, the system is being fed crappy data because users don't care and those who do are few in number. As long as system is making revenue, it will be this way. Most people never care at all and would never be bothered because they only care for simple queries. If anyone deviates from the norm, Google search results are pretty bad like every other search engines.